ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY REPORT

CITIZENS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

RE:
CHARLES K. TENBORG

February 18, 2018

February 18, 2018
CONFIDENTIAL
ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY REPORT
To The Citizens Group
Of San Luis Obispo County

This addendum to our original report dated February 6, 2018 is being submitted in
response to your request to summarize potential “perjury” or “false statements”
made by Charles K. Tenborg that were uncovered during our investigation of
Charles K. Tenborg and his related companies; Eco Solutions, Fond Farewells Inc.,
CEC Medical Waste Services Inc., CEC Electronic Waste recycling, The Cleaner
Earth Company Inc. and Stericycle, Inc. The content of this report is
CONFDENTIAL and should not be disclosed to the general public.
As summarized below, we examined: a copy of:
1. A filing with the Superior Court of The State of California, County of San
Luis Obispo on or near October 2, 2013, with an attached Supplemental
Declaration of Charles K. Tenborg, which was signed by Tenborg on October 2,
2013 “Under the Penalty of Perjury.” (Exhibit 1)
2. A copy of a filing with the Superior Court of The State of California, County
of San Luis Obispo on or near November 18, 2013, with an attached Supplemental
Declaration of Charles K. Tenborg, which was signed by Tenborg on November
18, 2013 “Under the Penalty of Perjury.” (Exhibit 2)
3. A Deposition of Charles K. Tenborg’s sworn testimony dated September 21,
2016. (Exhibit 3)
4. Trial Transcripts of Tenborg’s sworn testimony in re; Tenborg v. Velie, et al,
dated March 9, 2017. (Exhibit 4, Excerpts)
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
5. Based upon our review of the Declarations, Deposition and Trial Testimony
as listed above, and based upon our previous investigation, we have made the
following observations:
6. As previously documented in our February 6, 2018 Preliminary Report,
CalRecycle provided a “Notice of Violation” addressed to Charles Tenborg and
CEC Electronic Waste Recycling Inc., dated February 6, 2017 and stated; “CEC,
while operating under CEWID #100228, repeatedly made false statements on the
payment claims listed below …As a result, CEC falsely claimed in excess of
$30,000.” On page 2 of violation notice, there was a list of 17 violations for false
claims beginning in March 2014 and running consecutively to July 2015.
7. Further, as part of CalRecycle’s response to my PRA request, they included
an email string dated November 20, 2015, where the apparent false claims were
first acknowledged by Mr. Tenborg. As documented on each of the seventeen (17)
claim forms, Mr. Tenborg signed the forms and declared so “Under the Penalty of
Perjury.” As previously shown in my previous report, in 2017 Mr. Tenborg signed
an agreement to repay CalRecycle the amount of over charges.
8. Mr. Tenborg stated in his October 2, 2013 declaration:

“54. Up until this Article was published, I had an excellent reputation in the
community. To this day, I have never been the subject of an enforcement action by
the California Department of Toxic Substances and Controls, and have a wealth of
experience proudly serving entities throughout California.”

However, based upon our PRA request to DTSC, there were three (3) violation
notices provided by DTSC that seems to contradict Mr. Tenborg’s October 2, 2013
declaration which was signed under the penalty of perjury;

3
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
a. Summary of Violations dated September 17, 2008 to CEC Electronic
Waste Recycling.
b. Summary of Violations dated October 28, 2009 to CEC Electronic Waste
Recycle Inc. The DTSC summary stated; “As a result of this inspection,
violations of hazardous waste laws, regulations, and requirements listed on
the attached pages were discovered.” The Notice of Violation Summary was
acknowledged by Charles Tenborg, President on”10/28/2009.”
c. Summary of Violations dated September 20, 2011 to Cleaner Earth
Company. The company representative accepting the summary of violations
was “Maurice Tenborg, CEC Ops Manager.” The last page is signed by:
“William L. Brown, Hazardous Substance Scientist, Enforcement and
Emergency Response Program, Department of Toxic Substance Control.”
9. In his November 2013 declaration Tenborg Stated:
“13. Eco Solutions has never illegally transport or dumped hazardous
waste. I temporarily stored clean non-hazardous soils in an area on Cold
Canyon Landfill property prior to disposal in May 2013.” “..because Eco
Solutions did not dispose of soils for PG&E at all until this year. These
soils were non-hazardous, and their disposal was permitted. Attached hereto
as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the disposal permit for these soils,
whose “non-hazardous” designation was supported by analytical results.
Eco Solutions paid Cold Canyon Landfill approximately $320 to accept
these non-hazardous oils.”
10. In his September 2016 Deposition, Tenborg answered in response to the
following questions:

4
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
Braur:
Q. Do you know what is meant by the term of vault waste?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Vault, v-a-u-l-t, vault waste, do you know what that means? Utility
vault waste?
A. Yes.
Q. What does that mean?
A. I'm assuming you're asking what vault waste consists of?
Q. Yes.
A. Debris, soil debris. Accumulated soil debris.
Q. Did you ever transport any of the vault waste when you owned Eco
Solutions?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And that was then also taken to the recycling area that you
previously described?
A. That was taken to the landfill.
Q. Okay.
A. Where the same facility's located.
Q. Okay. When you -- that waste -- the vault waste, was that in barrels or
drums when you transported them?
A. We -- because of our equipment and the nature of removing the
debris from the vaults, drums were the only piece of equipment.
Q. Okay. Was that -- the vault waste, was that taken to a separate place or
the same location where household waste would be brought for recycling
purposes?
MR. CLUNE: Objection, vague.
The witness: It was -- it was staged at our recycling facility located
over there -- over at -- at or near the HHW facility, it was not staged --
The witness: HHW, hazard waste facility. It was not incorporated or
brought into that -- their lease area.
MR. Brauer: Q. What does it mean to be staged?
A. We would place the drums to be emptied and then disposed of
properly at the landfill.
Q. So the drums would be emptied at the landfill; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Were the drums labeled with what the contents were?
A. Not a need for clean soils.

5
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
Q. Okay. So the vault waste was clean soil; is that what you're saying?
MR. CLUNE: Objection, vague and compound.
The Witness: The soils were disposed of at the landfill and accepted
at the landfill under guidelines provided to us by the landfill that they were
clean in terms of definition of the landfill to take it. The landfill is permitted
to take soils, minor contaminated soils.

MR. Brauer: Q. Did anyone test the soil before it was deposited in the landfill?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did the testing?
A. PG&E.
Q. Was most of the vault waste coming from PG&E?
A. Yes.
Q. Almost all of it came from PG&E, right?
A. Yes.
11. Trial Testimony
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Thursday, March 9, 2013
1:30 P.M.
Tenborg testifying:
Cross by Braur:
Q. Right. there was an occasion, is it correct, that at some point you transported
vault waste to the landfill?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. and you left it there for a while in a place where it's not supposed to be?
A. No, it -- we -- we staged it, it's clean soils. i mean, it's debris that were clean,
clean to us, and we stage them at our -- staged them at our facility there, yes.
Q. To your knowledge, were you ever ordered to remediate vault waste --
A. No.
Q. -- in a landfill?
A. No.
Q. You don't know or never have?
A. There was no remediation required, we -- we disposed of it properly at the
landfill.

6
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
Wagstaff - Tenborg’s attorney:
Q. Okay. You told us about vault waste and you said it comes clean to us; do you
remember that?
A. it --
Q. hold on. do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you -- can you tell the jury what you meant when you said it comes clean to
us and how that happens?
A. So under their maintenance program we were contracted to remove the soil
from those boxes. Now, PG&E, also as part of their maintenance program, an
inspection program pre-samples the soil that's in those boxes, sitting around the
transporter. And if it comes back hazardous I never -- I would never pump it out.
that would go -- that would all -- I’ve been doing business since 1997, that went to
a contractor, PSC, that would go remove that soil. if the material was clean versus -
- semi, and not hazardous, then we would clean it up for PG&E.

12. However, documentation received from the Water Board provided a string
of emails dated November 2015 between Ryan Lodge at the Water Board and
Benjamin Gray at Waste Connections regarding “Waste Handling Complaint” at
the Cold Canyon Landfill seems to contradict Mr. Tenborg’s sworn statements in
two declarations, a deposition and his court testimony as to the Cold Canyon
incident.
13. Mr. Gray in his email to Lodge stated:
“In May of 2013 I learned that EcoSolutions Inc., which runs the HHW
facility for the County at our Cold Canyon Landfill, had dumped some soil
over the NE portion of the HHW facility. This area is an unlined, non-
landfill portion of the Cold Canyon property.

I investigated the area in question and confirmed that some type of soils
appeared to have been dumped in the area described above. I then obtained
analytical data of the material from Charles Tenborg, the owner of
EcoSolutions, which he admitted to have dumped by the HHW area.

7
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
Charles said the soil in question was “build up” from wind and animals in
transformer boxes owned by PG&E that EcoSolutions had serviced.

After reviewing the analytical data, our Environmental Specialist for the
Western Region informed me that the sampled material did not meet
“unrestricted” use and needed to be placed into a lined portion of the
landfill. The material was not hazardous waste, but could not be dumped in
the area that it had been. I provided Charles a special waste application
which he completed and provided to our Environmental Specialist, who
then issued special waste permit….Charles then cleaned up all soils that
were dumped by the HHW and disposed of the soil on September 18, 2013
into Cold Canyon Landfill under special waste permit ColdCanyon-13-003.”

14. Therefore, the evidence provided by the Water Board indicates that the May
2013 incident was certainly not reported by Tenborg, nor was it reported by Waste
Connections to the Water Board until a call from Ryan Lodge at the Water Board
in November 2015, over two years after the incident.
15. In his email, Mr. Grey’s account of the “dumping” of the waste contradicts
Mr. Tenborg’s repeated assertion that the material was somehow “staged” or
“temporarily stored.” Ryan Lodge of the Water Board agreed that the waste
should have been disposed of in the lined portion of the landfill based on the
sample results, so it was not authorized to be dumped where it had been dumped.
16. Moreover, it appears, from the information that we have gathered that
Tenborg had been collecting Vault Waste from PG&E beginning at least in 2009,
and there is no indication where he was properly disposing of this waste which
contradicts Mr. Tenborg’s testimony that PG&E became a client sometime in
2013. It is concerning that neither the Water Board or Waste Connections
conducted their own sampling of the dump area, or followed up there investigation

8
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
by contacting PG&E to verify Mr. Tenborg’s story about non-hazardous waste
being collected from PG&E vaults.
17. Mr. Tenborg’s repeated reference to “Clean” soils or “Clean non-hazardous
soils” is contradicted by Mr. Grey’s analysis that the soils were not unrestricted,
required a special permit and had to be disposed of in a lined portion of the landfill.
18. Mr. Tenborg during his September 2016 deposition was asked “when did
you sell Eco Solutions? Tenborg responded “2014,” but clarified later on in the
deposition that “I sold the clients. Like a lawyer would sell their clients to another
firm company, I sold my clients of which Bill - - his contract was sold to another
firm.” But later on in the deposition Tenborg was asked; Q. You sold Eco
Solutions, at least the goodwill and the customer list, in 2014; is that correct?
Tenborg responed “It was either mid-2013 or early 2014.”
19. Mr. Tenborg was asked in the deposition the name of the company that
bought “that” (Eco Solutions) was Stericycle, but when asked who was the
president or CEO of Stericycle, stated “I don’t know.” (see exhibit 9)
20. During the trial in March of 2017, Tenborg was asked a number of questions
regarding the sale of Eco Solutions (or the client list) as follows:

a. Tenborg’s attorney:
Q. LET'S FOCUS THERE. SO WHEN THE RETRACTION DIDN'T COME IN,
SAY, JANUARY OF 2013, DID YOU AS A RESULT OF THE ARTICLE DECIDE
TO -- YOU HAD TO SELL YOUR BUSINESS?
A. YES, I DID.

b. Tenborg’s attorney:
Q. YOU TOLD US THAT YOU WERE -- WHAT, ABOUT 19
MONTHS LATER, AFTER THE ARTICLE, YOU WERE EVENTUALLY
ABLE TO FIND A BUYER, WHO WAS THE BUYER?
A. THE BUYER WAS STERICYCLE.
Q. TELL THE JURY WHAT STERICYCLE IS.
A. STERICYCLE, I BELIEVE, TRADITIONALLY, IS A
VERY LARGE MEDICAL -- A MEDICAL WASTE COMPANY. A

9
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
CONGLOMERATE, I UNDERSTAND. THEY -- THEY'RE JUST A VERY
LARGE COMPANY IN THE WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY.
Q. DID YOU BEGIN NEGOTIATING WITH STERICYCLE ABOUT THE PURCHASE
PRICE?
A. I DID.
c. Tenborg’s attorney:

Q. IN THE COURSE OF THOSE YEARS DID YOU HAVE TO EVALUATE ON AN

ANNUAL BASIS THE ONGOING BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY?
A. YES.
Q. AND DID YOU -- IN THE COURSE OF PUTTING YOUR BUSINESS UP FOR
SALE DID YOU HAVE PROFESSIONALS WHO WERE GIVING YOU ADVICE -- I'M
NOT TALKING ABOUT LAWYERS, PROFESSIONALS GIVING YOU ADVICE ABOUT
HOW TO VALUE YOUR BUSINESS?
A. YES.
Q. AND AS PART OF THAT VALUATION PROCESS DID YOU PERSONALLY
EVALUATE THE VALUE OF YOUR CONTRACTS?
A. YES.
Q. AND DID YOU COME TO A CONCLUSION -- DID YOU TRY TO EVALUATE
THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS THROUGH ANY METHODOLOGY?
A. I USED SOME -- MY ACCOUNTANT PROVIDED SOME PROJECTIONS AND --
PROJECTIONS BASED ON WHERE WE WERE --BASED ON, AT THAT POINT IN
TIME, WHERE WE WERE AT IN THE -- IN OUR CONTRACTS DUE TO THE
LEVEL OF WORK AT THE TIME.
Q. DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THAT EVALUATION WITH YOUR ACCOUNTANT?
A. YES, I DID.
Q. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT EVALUATION DID YOU COME TO THE
CONCLUSION AS TO THE VALUE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHEN YOU WERE PUTTING
IT UP FOR SALE IN 2013?
A. YES.
Q. AND WHAT WAS THAT VALUE?
A. 2.4 MILLION.
Q. THANK YOU. YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT GOODWILL. WHAT
WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU WERE TRANSFERRING TO
STERICYCLE AS PART OF THE SALE?
A. MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS -- THE GOODWILL WAS THE CLIENT
CONTRACTS.
Q. AND DID YOU IN FACT TRANSFER THE CLIENT CONTRACTS?
A. YES, I DID.
Q. AND DID STERICYCLE EVEN WANT TO BUY YOUR NAME OF THE COMPANY?
A. NO, THEY NEVER OFFERED TO BUY THE NAME.
Q. SO YOU KEPT THE NAME AND THEN IT NO LONGER RAN AS A BUSINESS?
A. IT CONTINUES AS A BUSINESS, AS A CORPORATION.
21. In my PRA request to the IWMA, I received copies of a Tenborg-Eco
Solutions response to an IWMA Request For Proposal dated April 10, 2013

10
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
(Exhibit 5). Of note was Section E, “Eco Solutions Subcontractors” and states;
“Lastly, Eco Solutions will utilize Stericycle for transportation, treatment and
disposal of consolidate sharps.” The RFP was signed by Charles K. Tenborg on
page 1. There was no indication in the Tenborg Response to the RFP memo that
there was a pending sale to Stericycle, rather the memo indicates that Stericycle
would be a subcontractor (Exhibit 5, page 11).
22. A Staff Report from the IWMA Website at page “7-1” from William A.
Worrell dated May 8, 2013 discussed the Tenborg RFP that “The proposal met the
criteria as described in the RFP.” There was no mention in the Worrell report to the
BOD about the allegations surrounding the CalCoast News article as having any
impact on the awarding of the contract to Eco Solutions or Charles K. Tenborg.
23. I received a copy of the Agreement between the IWMA and Eco Solutions
dated May 8, 2013 through my PRA request to the IWMA (Exhibit 6). In the 2nd
paragraph it states; “The Work to be performed under this Contract shall be
commenced July 1, 2013 and the Work shall be deemed complete when accepted
by the Integrated Waste Management Authority. All Work under this Agreement
shall be completed on or before June 30, 2018.”
24. There was no mention of a sale to Stericycle and the contract was for a 5-
year period of time.
25. The minutes of the IWMA posted on their Website, dated September 10,
2014, at paragraph 10 (“5-4”) states; Bill Worrell advised that the current
contractor that manages the IWMA’s regional hazardous waste program, Eco
Solutions, has requested the IWMA consent to the assignment of the agreement to
21st Century Environmental Management of California, LP a California Limited
partnership, a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Stericycle, Inc. A Delaware

11
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
corporation. Staff recommends the Board consent to assign the current
agreement.” The minutes did not mention that the contract was being sold to
Stericycle.
26. On September 10, 2014, the IWMA in a letter to Charles Tenborg, President
of Eco Solutions consenting to the Assignment of Agreement 21st Century
Environmental Management of California, LP a California Limited partnership, a
wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Stericycle, Inc. A Delaware corporation. The
consent was signed by; Tom O’Malley, President. (Exhibit 7)
27. In a letter dated October 2014 on the Letterhead of CEC Eco Solutions, Inc.
and Stericycle addressed to Integrated Waste Management Authority; the letter
states; “We are pleased to announce, CEC Eco Solutions Inc. will now be part of
Stericycle, Inc., and we are preparing to take on your hazardous waste services
with the least amount of disruption to your business.” “In closing, Stericycle is a
team with sound values, outstanding capabilities and a desire to earn your business
and trust by providing standout customer service.” Signed by; Charles Tenborg,
Owner, CEC Eco Solutions and Charlie Alutto, President & CEO Stericycle, Inc.
(Exhibit 8). Again, there is no mention of a sale in the letter.
28. We requested the IWMA payment history for both Eco Solutions and
Stericycle from the SLO County Auditor, who provided summaries for both
(Exhibit 9). The summary of payments for Eco Solutions details payments for the
period 11/8/2013 to 2/4/2015, which was well beyond the purported sale in 2013 or
the October 2014 apparent merger with Stericycle. The summary for Stericycle
detailed payments beginning in 4/10/2015, which is not close to the purported 2013
or early 2014 sale date.

12
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
29. We also requested the payment history for “The Cleaner Earth” another
Tenborg company from the SLO County Auditor, who provided summaries of
payments beginning on 4/9/2014 to 11/15/2017 (Exhibit 10). My cursory search
of the IWMA website has not uncovered a contract between the IWMA or the
Cleaner Earth beginning in or about 4/9/2014.
30. In my initial PRA request to the IWMA, I asked for proof of insurance that
Mr. Tenborg provided to the IWMA. This request was based upon the 2013
Agreement (May 8th, 2013) between the IWMA and CEC Eco Solutions Inc. that
Mr. Tenborg had signed with the IWMA whereby there was a requirement, by the
IWMA that Eco Solutions maintain an insurance policy that would cover stated
areas of coverage (page 3, paragraph 13).
31. As a result of the PRA, I received copies of Certificates of Liability (“COL”)
Insurance for the period July 2007 to July 2017 from Mr. Worrell (Exhibit 11).
The COL’s named the insured as “The Cleaner Earth Company, Inc., CEC Eco
Solutions, et al (2007 to 2010); Cleaner Earth Company, Inc., CEC Eco Solutions,
Inc., CEC Electronic Waste Recycling Inc. (2011-2013); The Cleaner Earth
Company (2014 to 2017). I also received a 2014 COL for Stericycle Inc. from the
IWMA, which seems to comply with section “c” of paragraph 13 of the Eco
Solutions Agreement whereby subcontractors were required to provide proof of
insurance for workman’s comp.
32. The COL documents do not appear to support the notion that a “sale” took
place of Eco Solutions to Stericycle, rather, the COL documents appear to
contradict Mr. Tenborg’s testimony that Eco Solutions were in fact sold in 2013 or
2014. If Tenborg had sold his contract with the IWMA to Stericycle, why would

13
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
he continue to provide proof of insurance to the IWMA if he no longer had a
contract with the IWMA?

33. Based upon our review of the Charles Tenborg declarations, the Charles
Tenborg deposition and the trial testimony of Charles Tenborg, we have not seen a
copy of the purported sale agreement with Stericycle or the purported evaluation of
Eco Solutions as asserted by Mr. Tenborg. It is concerning, in our view, that no
documentary evidence was provided to the court in order to substantiate a claim of
a loss between the alleged $2.4 million value of Eco Solutions and the alleged $1.3
million sale to Stericycle. However, the evidence is abundantly clear, that Tenborg
and Eco Solutions or Clean Earth were still receiving payments from the IWMA
even after the purported sale to Stericycle in either 2013 or late 2014.
34. Further, the documents provided by CalRecycle payment history showed
that CEC Electronic Waste Recycling received substantial monthly payments
beginning in 2008 and ending in 2017. There doesn’t appear to be any drop off of
revenue after the CCN article in November of 2012 (Exhibit 12).

CONCLUSIONS
35. The evidence as detailed in this report shows that Charles K. Tenborg
apparently provided false and misleading testimony under the penalty of perjury in
two declarations filed with the court, a sworn deposition given in September 2016,
and provided apparent false and misleading testimony during a March 2017 trial in
the Superior Court Of The State OF California, County Of San Luis Obispo.
36. In particular, we believe the assertion by Mr. Tenborg that he had to sell Eco
Solutions as a result of the November 2012 article by CCN is not supported by the
evidence cited in this report. There was no documentary evidence provided during

14
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
the litigation that Eco Solutions was sold to Stericycle. Our investigation continues
with respect to Mr. Tenborg’s relationship with the IWMA and Mr. Bill Worrell.
RECOMMENDATIONS
37. We would recommend that this report be shared with local law enforcement
authorities to determine whether Tenborg doing business as CEC Electronic Waste
Recycling, Inc. should be prosecuted for repeatedly making false statements on
seventeen (17) consecutive payment claims to CalRecycle during the period March
2014 to July 2015, which were made under the penalty of perjury.
38. We would further recommend that law enforcement officials review the
apparent false statements made on the Tenborg declarations of October and
November 2013, which were filed with the Superior Court Of The State OF
California, County Of San Luis Obispo; the apparent false statements given during
a sworn deposition in September 2016, and Tenborg’s false sworn trial testimony
in March of 2017.

Respectfully submitted,

Carl R. Knudson, CFE, PI (#19339)

Knudson Investigations
213-364-4474

Attachments:
Exhibit 1 – Declaration of Charles K. Tenborg, October 2013
Exhibit 2 – Declaration of Charles K. Tenborg, November 2013
Exhibit 3 – Deposition of Charles K. Tenborg, September 2016 (Electronic form)
Exhibit 4 – Trial Testimony of Charles K. Testimony, March 2017, Vol. #4 (not
attached due to volume)

15
Citizens of SLO
Addendum to Preliminary Report
Charles K. Tenborg
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit 5 – Tenborg-Eco Solutions response to an IWMA Request For Proposal
dated April 10, 2013
Exhibit 6 – Copy of Agreement between the IWMA and Eco Solutions dated
May 8, 2013
Exhibit 7 – IWMA Letter dated September 10, 2014, to Charles Tenborg
consenting to the Assignment of Agreement to Stericycle, Inc.
Exhibit 8 – Letter dated October 2014 on the Letterhead of CEC Eco Solutions,
Inc. and Stericycle addressed to Integrated Waste Management
Authority
Exhibit 9 – Payment history for both Eco Solutions and Stericycle from the SLO
County Auditor
Exhibit 10 – Payment history for “The Cleaner Earth” another Tenborg company
from the SLO County Auditor
Exhibit 11 – Copies of Proof of Insurance re Tenborg and the IWMA
Exhibit 12 – Copy of CalRecycle Summary of Payments 2008 to 2017 re CEC
Electronic Waste Recycling, Inc.

16